It’s easy to get romanced by direct game. Guys read stories about others who’ve succeeded by going direct and believe it’s the path of least resistance from getting no girls to lots of girls. While direct game does have its uses and can work in certain situations, I firmly believe that if you’re a guy who has little natural ability and needs aftermarket game to get laid, you’ll have a higher success rate with indirect game.
Here are a couple direct game openers:
“Hi I noticed you from across the room and you seem like an interesting person. What’s your name?”
“Hi I don’t have a lot of time to talk, unfortunately, but you seem like the type of person I would like to get to know. Do you want meet some other time over coffee?”
For reference purposes, here are two indirect openers:
“Is it okay if I pretend I’m talking to you? There’s this girl over there who won’t leave me alone, so I’m hoping she’ll see me with you and get the hint. Feel free to touch me lightly on the shoulder to make this more believable.”
“Hey do you speak English? What does this word here on the menu mean? I wish I had a dictionary on my phone.”
Direct game doesn’t mean you get mushy, throw out compliments, or buy her drinks. Then that wouldn’t be game. The above direct game examples don’t reference her beauty, and even set up a little challenge that your interest is dependent on her being a cool person, though some other guys do in fact reference beauty in their direct openers.
Many say direct game is “better,” but unfortunately we’re not able to conduct scientific studies to prove either side. Even my conclusions are based only on experience and anecdotal evidence. The main problem I have with direct game is this: it shows your cards right away and forces the girl to make a decision before you build up any value besides your appearance and confidence. That’s not enough for the majority of Western girls. You’re not giving her the time and information she needs to weigh the pros and cons on sleeping with you. Instead, immediately after the opener, you force her to decide right then and there if she wants to get involved. She’ll bow out (“Sorry I have a boyfriend”), or just be nice to you for the flattering attention. Truth is direct game guys get a lot of numbers but have a pitiful close rate.
But let’s say you’re a natural who has been getting laid since you were 15-years-old. Girls gravitate to you and wherever you go you’re getting checked out, probably due to your above-average looks and sexy body language. In that case going direct may be a better option. For some really good-looking guys who have limited conversational skills, going indirect would actually hurt them. They need to quickly get down to business before she realizes there isn’t much substance beneath the surface.
The more value you have, in terms of looks and status, the more direct you can go where you can approach girls saying they’re beautiful and bang that night without problems. But if you’re a random guy off the street who needs to study game to get the girls he wants, chance are you don’t have that initial value where you will be rewarded for your direct opener.
Every now and then I’m at a bar where for whatever reason I’m getting tons of looks or even getting approached outright. On those specific nights, I can go direct with success. On the other hand, if very few girls are checking me out, or the place is packed with dudes, going direct would be a suicide mission unless my target is ugly. If not a lot of girls are peeping you in the club, approach with indirect game, but if you feel like a rock star and think you can have your pick of whichever woman you want, then go direct. Unfortunately this type of scenario will never happen to most of us.
Bottom line: there are girls who will reject your direct game that would have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect. But not the other way around. If you approach a girl indirect that you could have gone direct on, the only difference is that it will take a little longer for the close. Because of this reason alone, it’s simply a good bet to have a default game that is indirect. Direct game is fun to mess around with on the side, but when I’m serious about getting laid I stay indirect. Even in a country like Brazil, where direct game is more rewarded than in the States, I still roll with indirect game unless I’m on a hot streak. For average looking guys, it’s their best option.Tweet Follow @rooshv
Related Posts You May Like:
Game Tips Newsletter:
What’s your take on the apocalypse opener? This super direct method seems good if a man has the game to hold his frame and pass the initial shit test that will probably follow.
The reason direct game doesn’t work for most men is because the girl is forced to judge him based on the limited information she has. Only men who are very attractive, have status, etc. will pull with direct game. With indirect game, the average guy has time to build up her perception of his value through interesting stories, humor, etc.
Vincent Ignatius’s last blog post: I Bought Bang.
I liked your entry until this line :”Bottom line: there are girls who will reject your direct game that would have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect”
what proof do you have to prove that? Yeh some women prefer to wait before they sleep with you (they are less impulsive) I agree with that but I personally don’t believe that you can actively “convince” or “persuade” a women into sleeping with you if she is just not into you.
Furthermore, if you are able to do that, it would take SO MUCH work and would create SO MUCH frustration for the guy. life is short, why waste time on Maybe girls?
I prefer a women to tell me NO straight away, then to say “maybe” and string me along. a guy might be able to “manipulate” a naive women into bed however most attractive women are seasoned manipulators and if a geeky/creepy guy comes in thinking that he’ll get her in bed with his “game” she’ll have him for dinner.
The key components in my opinion in game ARE Looks/appearance/image and Confidence/balls/self-control and not “magic indirect lines”.
Any man in my opinion should strive to improve his looks, appearance, style, physical shape and get some status (i.e. get a career) instead of being lazy and a slob. Furthermore, he should aim to improve his confidence by taking risks (by being direct) and learning to be indifferent to a women’s subjective criticisms and rejection (i.e. not being apologetic, being aloof) that deciding that he can “compensate” by learning “indirect game lines”.
ps: ““Hey do you speak English? What does this word here on the menu mean? I wish I had a dictionary on my phone.”
well, one can go direct after that, the crux of direct game is being upfront and letting the women know that you want to fuck her sometimes in the near future and that you are not hiding that fact. Indirect is trying to get laid by pretending that you don’t want to get laid. so in the end it aint a question of “openers”.
you should check out modeone btw
I think you have to weigh your priorities and constraints – for someone like myself (married who only gets to party when out of town/wife out of town) I go mostly direct. No time to invest in going indirect, going on dates before sex, etc. For me, it’s all or nothing.
But before, I used to go indirect more often. I second Roosh that for most guys this works better.
“Bottom line: there are girls who will reject your direct game that would have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect. But not the other way around.”
There are some situations where direct would help more than indirect: situations involving a heavy time factor.
If you have limited time in a place, limited time before a girls boyfriend/father/mother returns, on the street, etc, direct can get you the swoop where indirect will not.
The brutal thing about being direct is you can get swatted alot. This can be brutal, or at least annoying, even for someone who has been swooping mass girls for years.
Generally speaking, indirect works better in more “closed” environments; weddings, house parties, art gallery gigs etc.
Direct is better for the big club.
Street Game and the beach are a mixture of the two.
“Yeh some women prefer to wait before they sleep with you (they are less impulsive) I agree with that but I personally don’t believe that you can actively “convince” or “persuade” a women into sleeping with you if she is just not into you.”
Right. But sometimes it takes a while for quality girls to be into you.
The G Manifesto’s last blog post: Fame VS Game in Newport Beach.
The problem with this analysis is that indirect Game does not exactly conceal your intentions – if you’re in a bar and talking to a girl, the default assumption is you’re trying to pick her up. Everyone realizes this off the bat.
That’s what I’ve never understood about proponents of indirect Game – do you really think the girl doesn’t know what you are up to talking to her in a bar just because you don’t directly proposition her?
In this context, with this set of assumptions governing the interaction, it comes off as weak and insecure to not be direct – everyone knows what’s going on, and he doesn’t even have the balls to be open about it. Does not look good to the girl.
If a girl doesn’t like the look of you, for whatever reason, she’ll get rid of you after your first two sentences however indirect your Game is – she’s in a bar, she knows why you’re talking to her. I’ve seen guys get rejected brutally with indirect Game, and it looked so much worse because it was so obvious what they were up to but didn’t even have the balls to be upfront about it.
In a bar or nightclub – perhaps anywhere involving a cold approach – there is no such thing as indirect Game. Doesn’t and cannot exist because of the assumptions governing the interaction. There is only bolder or less bold Game, and to me it seems obvious which is better.
Some great follow-up posts. They pretty much cover most of the salient points.
The problem with comparing direct and indirect game is that all indirect game is basically the same in terms of effect. The effect is usually one of two things:
1.She sees you as fun, funny, a good conversationalist, etc, in other words, someone who can entertain her.
2.You play on her insecurities with takeaways, negs, social proof, etc..and make her desire you based on what you can give her other than sex (generally validation). Cash, fame, convenience, etc…can be other motivators for a girl to get with an indirect guy. But the key is “what you can give her other than sex”. Whether you realize this or not, this is the message.
Whether or not she likes you in a sexual way despite your lack of overt sexual behavior, has nothing to do with your efforts. You might be good looking, have a bulge in your pants, be exotic to her, or she might perceive you as ‘cool’ enough to sleep with based on the fact that she doesn’t think that you’ll get needy if she fucks you. But you are doing nothing active to perpetuate sexual attraction in a direct way. Its more than likely her either wanting something, or her connecting the sexual dots on her own that gets her attracted to you. A slow process that may or may not happen.
Usually a mix of techniques, toward these goals, is what constitutes indirect game. Even direct guys, have to fill the space in-between direct comments, use indirect game to fill those spaces. You can’t always be telling her you want to fuck her, or that she’s pretty. Although, some very very good direct guys can. Usually these guys need regular access to these women for that to work. After a while though, space needs to be filled.
Also, indirect game requires a longer time factor to have any effect. Therefore, assuming that both direct and indirect are effective in their own way, indirect game is designed to have a more gradual effect to get you to where you want to be with her. My point is that it is VERY difficult to accelerate her sexual attraction to you without even some minor direct comments. Otherwise, your gonna be cooking at low heat with her. Hopefully, that cake will get done eventually. Thats why guys rely on alcohol and stimulating environments to help them accelerate the process when going indirect. Otherwise, you’ll likely be waiting.
Direct game, however, can have very different effects depending on the type of direct game that you are kicking. You can’t just say “direct doesn’t work in this situation, compared to indirect”. Without specifying the type of direct game. I never tell girls that they are ‘pretty’. Thats lame. Direct, yes, but also lame.
You can do the “nice guy direct” “your pretty, I want to get to know you” type of direct game and get one result. That will probably result in a dinner date and her wanting to be wined and dined and romanced into bed. If your good at that, like Zan, for instance, then you can do very well. You’ll be the lothario / pirate / romantic archetype that every woman has as her ideal. An extremely effective, but advanced way to game that requires a lot of practice and advanced skill, either innate or learned, to do well. I’m not that patient.
I prefer the more ‘direct to sex’ approach. Combine more sexual innuendo with an attitude of non-neediness and a direct message that you would like to fuck her, but your not desperate to fuck her. Interact with her in a fun, positive way with direct sexual comments peppered in. You could care less about her response. This is the most effective way to game, for the effort involved in learning it, that I have ever tried. Its my primary game now. Girls are actually shocked when they get to know me (after we’ve fucked a few hundred times), that I’m actually a very sensitive guy.
Also, I have to comment that direct game is like taking steroids for your inner game.
Does a guy, who does mostly indirect game, have the believable(to the girl) confidence to go up to a random 8-10s on the street, on a regular basis, without blinking an eye, look her up and down like you want to eat her for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and tell her how fucking sexy she is? BTW, the message when thats done right, conveyed via your eyes and body language, isn’t “your pretty” but “I would fuck you all day and night”.
That type of confidence can only be had with practice with direct game. You lose your fear of women, because you are used to interacting with them in a sexual way. Your not nervous, and so they aren’t nervous. They become comfortable with letting their sexual guard down.
These are two great ideas for day game. I’ve only tried direct game and it has gotten results. Either way, it only takes one approach to build courage and confidence. Once the first one is done, no matter if you were rejected or not, you will try again with the next girl you see. The first one of the day/week whatever is the toughest hurdle.
Culdcept’s last blog post: The Details.
Never tried the apocalypse opener.
2: You do not have a firm grasp on the concept of game if you think it’s convincing or persuading a girl. It’s showing value, enough so that she decides that she’d be happier with you in her life. Betas convince or persuade, and they don’t get laid much. With your strategy you’re unfortunately costing yourself a lot of women.
“Direct is better for the big club”
Not if there are more guys than girls and you’re just regular Joe off the street. If you’re doing table service and are known then maybe.
5: The point is not to conceal your true intentions, but mask the intensity and direction. At almost no point in an indirect pickup will she be able to say “Sorry I have a boyfriend,” even if she may know deep down you want to have sex with her. So you chat with her, and chat with her, and break down her defenses with your ability, and things proceed.
“If a girl doesn’t like the look of you, for whatever reason, she’ll get rid of you after your first two sentences however indirect your Game is”
If a girl doesn’t mind your look, or isn’t crazy about it, she’ll chat with you longer if you had gone indirect. If a girl is repulsed by you then I don’t think there is any game in the world than can overcome that.
In the end you want to pick a strategy that gives you the most solid results based on work put in. Indirect does that. Maybe some guys can find a niche with direct game (e.g. a big guy in the gym), but until then they’re wasting approaches.
I totally agree with George’s perspective that all game in essence is direct game when you’re in a bar/club type situation because she knows why you’re coming up to her. Just like if a random girl comes up to us in a bar and says ANYTHING whatsoever, even just the weather we just assume she likes us and that’s her opener. So I can see the logic in going direct all the time.
I also totally agree with the G that there’s open and closed(like weddings, parties, etc) environments where you have to tweak things too. In that circumstance, you can’t be too balls out in your approach because it’s just not appropriate. At a wedding reception or some group event, indirect game is your only choice.
I guess it depends on how you define the terms. I always thought of “indirect” as the kind of thing you see pushed on a lot of Game sites where you talk to a girl over your shoulder, avoid walking right up to her, and then do so in an offhand casual way as if you have no interest in her whatsoever. That over the shoulder, don’t directly face her, thing always struck me as weak and gay.
But if by “indirect” you simply mean “don’t proposition her or force her to choose without first letting her experience your personality, but it is ok to walk up to her directly and start a conversation where it is pretty obvious what you are after”, then I actually agree that THIS kind of “indirect” is the way to go for nearly everyone, EVEN handsome guys.
Only in rare situations when a girl is eyballing you should you walk up and directly proposition her. Although I guess that isn’t really that rare, but when a girl makes girl she is totally into you, you can go over because she has already “chosen”, but if that isn’t clear, then even the best looking guys with the highest status have first to let her experience their personality.
Yeah, as far as approaching, unless you really want to do something elaborate to throw the scent off of the trail, she knows that you are interested in sex.
Guys who think that she doesn’t know this are doing themselves a huge disservice when it comes to their lifestyle and efforts.
You can either make her feel comfortable with it, by letting her know its no big deal with you, that your intentions aren’t hidden, and that you aren’t needy for it. Or you can watch her watch you be too insecure to let her know that you want her. And watch her watch you jumping through hoops to get her into bed (dancing, cracking jokes, buying drinks, hanging around her too much, looking at her too much, inviting her out too much, calling her too much). You can avoid all of that if she knows what your after. She will eventually call you when she’s ready (horny), if she doesn’t take you up on it right away.
Direct ranges from “your pretty” to “I wanna fuck” and everything in-between. It doesn’t have to fall at either extreme as far as what you actually say, but it can. It depends on you. It can be very, very subtle and still be just as effective. Its the message received that matters, not what you actually say.
I find somewhere in the middle to be the best. You aren’t shocking her pride and programming by assuming that she will jump into the sack right now with you (“I wanna fuck”), but you can avoid triggering the romantic (“aww, isnt he sweet / thanks, thats the hundredth time I’ve heard that”) reflex (your pretty). Be sexual, but in a way that doesn’t send her running. Small comments about her lady parts tends to work well, without looking for a reaction from her. But also build report so she can not take it too seriously.
Not to hijack Rooshes comparison article with a direct diatribe. Sorry Roosh.
Chris is on point here. remember that rejection is win-win because
1) you don’t waste time…how many times have you “tried to show her your value” and wasted time, effort and energy only to be refused later on.
2)there is a significant percentage of women who will reject a man just so that she doesnt lose face or appear desperate, however deep down she is intrigued by this man’s guts and big ass balls…she will contact him in the future and he will have the upper hand (it has happened to me on 2 occasions during the last year)…at the bare minimum, she will talk to her friends about how self-assured this guy is and more often than not, her friends will get curious.
in sum, the consolation prize for being rejected is to plant the seed in her mind that you are a man who is highly self-assured and is not intimidated by her.
Look my point is for most guys, especially those getting into the game, indirect game is the way to go. If you can work direct game then that’s great. I’m not bashing it.
“you don’t waste time…how many times have you “tried to show her your value” and wasted time, effort and energy only to be refused later on.”
You mean how many times has a girl flaked or changed or mind? Are you insinuating that girls never do that on guys who approach direct game? So it only takes you 2 minutes from meet to fuck when you do succeed? You approach more girls than an indirect game guy, and have much weaker early and mid game simply because you don’t get there as much.
i’m still up-n-coming so correct me if i’m wrong here. but this is how I make sense of all this:
-indirect game thwarts her conscious mind and all the stupid reasons it might have to not consider you sex-worthy
-time spent in off-the-cuff conversation builds comfort.
-at the same time your conan-like body language, harmless touching, steady physical escalation and deadly takeaways ply her subconscious mind.
So by the time you say ‘let’s get out of here/put your number in my iTelephone/my RV has a honeymoon suite’ she’s into you, and down for it.
indirect openings are effective like suppressive fire, but closing the deal boldly (directly) is very attractive and a lot of fun for both guy and girl.
the last chick that hooked for me, i opened indirectly, assumed attraction, qualified, got called out on my shit, declared i was there to see if she was worth my time/dating dime, and then built comfort.
man i need to get laid badly.
I think people here overrate status. I have tons of status (make lots of $) and it doesn’t help me get chicks in bars.
Game is more important than status (except for with golddiggers)
A perfect example of indirect game is ‘Style’ or ‘Mystery’. Indirect game is great when you’re getting into game, where as direct game comes from experience. Also, indirect game can be taught much easier as a series of steps; direct game is trickier to show.
It also depends on the venue. If you’re traveling and in a hostel, I think one can be a bit bolder — more direct — since people are more open to sex when traveling. I would never go indirect with some chick in a hostel in Rio, for example. She knows and I know that we’re looking to bang.
One has to be crazy to run cube routines or do some other ‘tricks’ on a girl when in a traveling environment. You’re a confident traveler, she’s out to have fun, so just a move and make it happen.
Indirect game has its place when you’re going for a classmate, or at a wedding or similar social setting.
I agree though: those who’re starting out, start with indirect game and build from that.
ElGuapo’s last blog post: Random thoughts on Brazil.
“You mean how many times has a girl flaked or changed or mind? Are you insinuating that girls never do that on guys who approach direct game? So it only takes you 2 minutes from meet to fuck when you do succeed? You approach more girls than an indirect game guy, and have much weaker early and mid game simply because you don’t get there as much.”
girls of course do that, hot women love to be ambiguous and difficult lol! however being direct can force them to reveal their hand early. why? because some women do NOT want to reject a man too early, they want to use him for his attention (and sometimes money) to stroke their egos.
The way I approch dating is like marketing, sales, and psychology. even yourself, you mentionned the book by cialdini ( a must read btw). it said that people follow those:
1) whom we like in appearance
2)have social proof (like the great quote by kundera you once put)
3)ACT and BEHAVE as an authority (I put emphasis on these words because I believe a man should approach a women with the confidence that he knows deep down that he is more worthy than her and that she’ll be down to F him at a given time, whence the need not to beat around the bush and pretend that he aint trying to get into her pants. Any resonnably attractive and experienced women KNOWS the reason you are striking elaborate fluff talk with her is to get into her pants so why not burn a few bridges!)
4)scarcity, people want what they can’t have so a man should be aloof and dont be too available or anxious.
again, direct game is more than an opener it’s a mindset. check out paul janka too btw.
maybe indirect can work for newbies if they are geeky/below average/socially inapt but if a guy can improve his looks and status (and he should have the ambition to) then direct is better in my opinion.
Alan Roger Currie breaks it down
furthermore, this is what paul janka has to say on the numbers game and sexual market:
- There are 3 types of girls around: yes, no and maybe girls
Again, the effective hustlers know how to judge the three types and work accordingly.
All guys know the “no” girls. They are sticks in the mud, stand-offish, difficult,
Princesses. Any guy who has been laid several times knows this type of girl. He
probably has a gut instinct that she’s going to be hard to get in the sack. “Yes” girls, by
contrast, are flirty, fun, open with body language and game for anything. They allow you
to ask them back to your place with ease. The problems are the “maybe” girls, especially
if they are hot. Even after years of practice, I still can get stuck on these types, but as
soon as I recognize the direction we’re going I can make the call. The “maybe” girls are
where most guys get hung up spending all their money and time, thinking that they will
get her. Careful, gentlemen, you are dealing with pros. Even other women will admit
how manipulative a woman can be. Don’t assume you’ll wear here down or trick her.
It’s better to walk then to throw more energy at these problem girls.
So, back to the system. Prior to recognizing how effective a system for getting
laid could be, I would take my opportunities where they presented themselves: poolside
at a wedding, on the Chinatown bus between Boston and NYC, in a cab, in Central Park.
Don’t get me wrong, there is not a wrong place to take a woman. But if you want to get
laid with a minimum of time, energy, hassle, bullshit, and most importantly, cost, then
you should work out an effective system.
Think about it. All other business enterprises have a system to deliver a good or
service: Starbucks coffee is fresh, hot and strong because of the system and protocol the
baristas follow. Any successful business must follow a blueprint if it hopes to achieve
significant results; the same applies to shagging women, believe it or not. Do not leave
your sex life up to chance – what women often call “romance”. Take charge of it.
So, we have this large market of single men and women. A city like NY is ideal,
because it’s concentrated, and there are so many people and the city is sexy and
anonymous. By the way, anonymity is key because as a hustler, I try (as I encourage you
to) all types of new methods and approaches; some work, some work brilliantly, but alas,
some fail and fall flat. In this city, who cares, because chances are you won’t see the
person again, and even if you do, by that time you’ll be a confident playboy and who
cares what one stupid bitch thinks, anyhow.
So, it’s a market, and there are plenty of girls for everyone. Also, to us they may
be hot and sexy, but to themselves and other girls, they are just competition, and have
their own un-sexy habits like farting, burping, bad breath, fat thighs etc. Don’t fall for
women’s facade. It’s been my experience that women are heavily front-loaded in what
they can offer – their value-proposition. She may look fit, sexy and sophisticated, but
after you’ve banged her and she’s naked, with mascara running down her face and she’s
trying to stuff her thighs into a pair of too small jeans at 2am, you’ll realize she’s just
another person trying to get by. Don’t be intimidated.
A reason why I use direct game is pretty much the same as mentioned by Chris and G Manifesto – time. Makes it much easier to recognize if the girl is open to one night stand or not. Since I generally do not do dates and not even collect phone numbers, going indirect would be a waste of time for me.
Haha you said “peeping.”
I’d say even if you have above average looks you might as well go indirect. When your looks start to fade, you’ll be good to go. That’s my goal at least.
The Rookie’s last blog post: Anticipation.
nice post & constructive comments
Like Style says, coming in “under the radar” works much better for us guys that have a winning personality (and intellect) but don’t have Brad Pitt looks.
Rivelino’s last blog post: Young and sweet only seventeen.
Man you’re still caught in the stupid Direct and Indirect jeez man!
They’re not better they’re DIFFERENT! Because not all women are the same.
Here a better analogy from Patrice Oneal’s “The Black Phillip Show:
You guys better get out of that stupid community mindset!!!
Fuck man you must be bored to write this shit. Syop analysing Roosh…get out there rather than watching.
Indirect = no balls
I like indirect better for night game – bars and clubs and shit… but at the same time, girls know why you are approaching them when out. It’s not rocket science.
I want to experiment with direct game during day game scenarios though, that seems to be the consensus for game/PUA blogs for what I see…
Willy Wonka’s last blog post: Trying To Make a Grown Man Move.
I sometimes get so bombed I can’t even form whole sentences when I’m out. I could come up and bump your ass and then laugh and they ask my name. They will get annoyed because I’m so hammered that they can’t have a conversation with me, but a lot of them will stick around. I could smile, laugh, kiss them and hail a cab and still get away with it. I think direct is best after leaving most of the indirect behind. Aside from being a drunken ass clown, direct is often rewarded because you put your sack in front of them for them to stomp on. You’re so used to throwing it out there that they can see you don’t care either way. Skips a lot of the rapport part but you can build that during pillow talk.
“maybe indirect can work for newbies if they are geeky/below average/socially inapt”
That’s the point! What guy getting into the game doesn’t have some social/anxiety issues? I sure did. Making these guys learn direct is retarded.
“check out paul janka too btw.”
Have you seen pictures of that guy? How many guys getting into the game look like him? You don’t think his looks has SOMETHING to do with his ability to go direct?
The direct vs indirect argument is like the windows vs mac argument for game guys.
Direct game is just what guys have been doing for decades. For those of you guys who say that if a girl is in a club she know that you are trying to pick her up. Sure.
But I think Game is all about creativity. How many “I think you seem interesting,” or “Hi my name is” do you think she gets if she’s cute? If she’s beautiful? The number is a lot. This is why prepackaged openers exists.
If the girl is in a two set indirect game can be perfect if you pay attention to the to the other target, because then she can think that you were trying to hit on her friend.
Also I know that although my first thought is that guys are trying to pick me up when they talk to me out of nowhere ( strangers) in clubs or during the day time. I have a hard time justifying this without evidence. Direct game gives evidence. Indirect doesn’t. many girls may put up the same bitch shields for indirect game, but I think that my bitch sheild isn’t half as strong.
It’s rude to tell someone just asking for some help to go away, but it’s not rude to to tell someone trying to pick you up to go away, or that you’re not interested it.
V’s last blog post: Old Man Game.
what a skinny homo you have become. Could’ve had a dope suit and a place of your own by now easy but couldn’t even hold down a job.
Terrific post and many good comments.
In general I have agree with Roosh about indirect being the default choice. But a lot of this stuff is intuitive, and sometimes girls make up their minds in a few seconds. Pay attention to reactions, the look in her eyes etc. It may pay off to switch to a more direct game if the vibe is there.
Don’t know who the fuck that fake VK is on comment 29 but that fuck face really needs to stop jacking my fucking swagger and sign! Eat a dick.
This post was filled with great shit. I notice that I’ve been using direct game more and more, but that’s only because my Swagger has been of the charts lately. Like you said if your confidence is high because girls have been responding well to your game, then other girls can tell you have something going on.
I think people here overrate status. I have tons of status (make lots of $) and it doesn’t help me get chicks in bars.
Unless you have your account balance written across your forehead, the girls in bars don’t know that. If you just drop that info in a conversation, you look like you’re trying too hard and that lowers your value. But if you attained your status by being good at something, then attend an event associated with that thing where everyone knows your status beforehand. The chicks will be far more open to your advances.
Back home, I’m popular among the students at my school and host a ton of events. I pick up girls at these events using that status. But when I’m out at a pub here in Nicosia, all that status back home doesn’t mean shit. I can’t be like, “By the way, I’m no one here, but people 4000 miles away think I’m the shit.”
Vincent Ignatius’s last blog post: I Bought Bang.
Making a lot of $ (=high status) with no social skills obviously wouldn’t get you chicks. You still need to seduce her.
Social Skills = Game
ElGuapo’s last blog post: Living Series: Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
“Making a lot of $ (=high status) with no social skills obviously wouldnâ��t get you chicks. You still need to seduce her.”
Very true. I have a friend that has money, drives a brand new Corvette, wears nothing but Armani and True Religion… and he gets nowhere near the amount of pussy I get and I’m broke working new little bullshit hourly jobs and getting fired from them every couple of months.
He just has no game. I’ve been trying to teach him some game, but it’s a slow process, as I’m not great yet myself…
Willy Wonka’s last blog post: Notch Counts and Expectations.
“Sorry your comment was blocked because it contains the word: p*ssy”
Wtf Roosh? Isn’t this blog about getting p*ssy?!? How can that be a blocked word?!?
Willy Wonka’s last blog post: Notch Counts and Expectations.
““By the way, I’m no one here, but people 4000 miles away think I’m the shit.””
You should be able to carry that via confidence everywhere you go. That’s the key: you are a king in one situation and that should be transferable.
I co-organized crazy parties in Rio, but here in New York, my confidence is skyrocketed because of prior experiences. I suppose that’s what “PUA gurus” call inner game or something.
ElGuapo’s last blog post: Living Series: Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
“For some really good-looking guys who have limited conversational skills, going indirect would actually hurt them. They need to quickly get down to business before she realizes there isn’t much substance beneath the surface.”
Sounds like me.
FAZ’s last blog post: Does it make sense to fight an up hill battle?.
One thing that I’ve learned from doing game is the IOT. It’s like the IOI (Indicator Of Interest) but it’s not the same. IOT stands for Indicator Of Trashiness, it’s almost as good as an IOI. If a girl has a tattoo, that’s potentially an IOT. The IOT has revolutionized the world of pickup.
FAZ’s last blog post: Does it make sense to fight an up hill battle?.
I wouldn’t consider myself particularly good looking and I sure as hell wasn’t good at game when I started out. I think everyone can gain from using a bit of direct game. I found that practising direct game as a noob, did a lot for my confidence, attitude, body language etc. Also caveman style direct game is very attractive to a lot of girls. A lot of ugly, unconfident guys will look a lot sexier with a smirk on their face conveying to a beautiful girl how she makes them feel. Its a lot simpler and doesn’t have too many steps to remember. That means there is less of a chance of a noob fucking it up. I’m just making a case for ordinary Joe’s benefiting from direct game. My success went way up after I started going direct and learning how to use it effectively. Not just because of just what I was saying, but the knock on effects it had on my confidence and sexual expression.
Sure there’s never just one tool for the job. Also like you said in Bang, there’s a lot of game but only a small range that serves any one guy. I would say mine incorporates a liberal dose of direct.
I’ve heard it said the opposite for Indirect and Direct Game. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is to have the Basic Fundamentals of Game down. Once you have that, either style doesn’t matter.
Superman’s last blog post: Happy Hour Chaos.
[...] – “Direct Game vs. Indirect Game“, “Fried Chicken [...]
I just started reading these after I discovered Roosh while researching Colombia. That said, I’m late to the party but, here’s my perspective. I’m 6’2 big, fit, and handsome. I used to only go direct (because I didn’t know any other way) unless I stumbled upon indirect by accident and I was very limited on the type of girl I could close. I started studying game and basically I look at indirect as another weapon in the arsenal. When you’re trying to close, you have to move from one side of the spectrum to the other with the polarity of direct vs indirect. A good salesmen doesn’t go direct until he’s built up the value of whatever he’s selling. That’s why indirect game is necessary and also Roosh’s point, when you say “are you in or out?” you force a answer, and that could be a deal breaker. I had to learn indirect because some women found me intimidating and it was really an issue with my close ratio. Indirect allowed me to build the value, keep the conversation going, and ultimately set up the final direct question/suggestion “Let’s get out of here.” Roosh and all other indirect game players have to use direct when they finally close imo but, indirect is more fun. It takes finesse, more intellect, and a degree of patience that let’s you almost savor the seduction. Also, as a big dude, it works even better because it isn’t EXPECTED. Ultimately, I think a good game player will have both tools and recognize when to use them. Obviously there’s a preference, but when tightening up the game, you have to have the confidence that direct game requires. All you little/average looking guys would launch a surprise attack if you used direct sense it isn’t expected. I think some guys think direct means being obnoxious and whatnot, but to me it means being more up front and moving to close sooner than you would if you were using indirect. Some girls like a guy who has the balls to go for it. They like a warrior who’s willing to storm the castle. I hate being redundant but, to drive the point home, you have to oscillate between the two and recognize when to pull out what tool (Nice pun huh?)
Ok, I just read that article and it is WAY off the mark. I’m actually boiling after reading that article, because the guy who wrote it states a lot of his misconceptions about Direct as facts, when in fact much of what he says isn’t true at all. That guy doesn’t understand Direct at all. He is a typical ‘indirect PUA guru’ who talks shit about Direct. I’m going to break his article down bit by bit, because it’s mega important that someone stands up to these indirect guys who are spreading false propaganda about direct. I’ve got some strong words to say here, and I make NO APOLOGIES for what I’m about to say because it needs to be said. This is going to be a long reply, so grab yourselves a cup of coffee guys and read on….
While direct game does have its uses and can work in certain situations, I firmly believe that if you’re a guy who has little natural ability and needs aftermarket game to get laid, you’ll have a higher success rate with indirect game.
I disagree….a lot of people seem to think that if you’re a newbie to approaching and dating women, that you should start with indirect and then later on progress to Direct. I think this is misguided information. Direct and indirect are two OPPOSING philosophies and two different forks in the road, so you have to decide which fork in the road you’re going to take. One road does not lead to the other.
I actually think if a guy who’s new to approaching and dating women starts off with indirect, he’s going to find it harder to progress to Direct at a later stage because he’ll be so brainwashed by all these indirect ‘pseudo science game theories’ that he’ll have to unlearn that before he can progress to direct. If a guy wants to be Direct with women, he should start out as Direct from the start. He shoudn’t get involved with indirect at all if he wishes to pursue the Direct philosophy. End of.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Here are a couple direct game openers:
“Hi I noticed you from across the room and you seem like an interesting person. What’s your name?”
“Hi I don’t have a lot of time to talk, unfortunately, but you seem like the type of person I would like to get to know. Do you want meet some other time over coffee?”[/QUOTE]
First point: direct is not ‘game’, it is simply about TRUTH and being REAL. I wish all these indirect guys would stop calling Direct ‘direct game’. Basically, they are trying to use direct as a technique or tactic. ‘Game’ is a term from the indirect community, where one applies a bunch of techniques, tactis and routines in order to try and get women.
Direct is the antithesis of all that. It’s about not using ‘game’ and instead about being REAL. So stop referring to direct as ‘direct game’ and instead refer to it simply as Direct.
Second point: Direct is not about having preplanned ‘openers’. Direct is about opening with whatever is on your mind in the moment and letting your interest in the woman be known right from the start. The concept of using preplanned ‘openers’ comes from the indirect community.
Third point: neither of those two ‘openers’ are Direct. The first one ‘[I]Hi I noticed you from across the room and you seem like an interesting person. What’s your name?’[/I] is NOT direct. In no way does this ‘opener’ express the fact that you’re sexually/romantically attracted to the women. This ‘opener’ simply conveys PLATONIC interest, as there is no sexual element. How is the women going to know what you want from her and that you’re interested in her sexually/romantically by saying that ‘opener’?
The same applies to the second ‘opener’, [I]‘Hi I don’t have a lot of time to talk, unfortunately, but you seem like the type of person I would like to get to know. Do you want meet some other time over coffee?’[/I]. The only thing this opener conveys is that you’re interested in getting to know the woman….but there’s no way to tell if you’re interested in getting to know her because you want a platonic friend or if you want a lover. It cannot be ‘assumed’ that she knows you’re sexually attracted to her.
Therefore these openers are Mode 2 or even Mode 3…i.e. indirect. There are NOT direct. These examples alone prove that Roosh does not understand Direct.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Direct game doesn’t mean you get mushy, throw out compliments[/QUOTE]
Again, stop calling Direct ‘game’. And there is nothing wrong with opening with a genuine, sincere compliment. Nothing at all. David X, the Godfather of Direct, compliments women from the outset. He asks himself what about her turns me on?’, then goes over to the woman and tells her what he’s noticed.
As long as you’re not using compliments to gain ‘browny points’ and as long as you state your intentions straight away, then there is nothing wrong with opening with a sincere compliment. If anything, a compliment lets a woman know you’re sexually attracted to her if said right!
QUOTE=Roosh]The main problem I have with direct game is this: it shows your cards right away and forces the girl to make a decision before you build up any value besides your appearance and confidence. That’s not enough for the majority of Western girls. You’re not giving her the time and information she needs to weigh the pros and cons on sleeping with you. [/QUOTE]
What’s wrong with showing your cards right away? When you show your cards right away, you force a girl to show HER cards right away…which is exactly what you want! Also, you can still get to know a girl after you’ve approached her Direct, so you can see if you’re compatible or not. A lot of indirect guys seem to think that you have to get to know a girl first, before revealing your intentions.
But when you hide your intentions by going indirect, you allow the girl to hide her intentions too, thus leaving yourself open to being manipulated, having your time/money/emotional energy wasted. Better to know UPFRONT if a girl is sexually attracted to you or not, so you can move on without wasting time if she isn’t interested. The problem with indirect is that is doesn’t allow you to efficiently identify which women are interested in you sexually and which women are not.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Instead, immediately after the opener, you force her to decide right then and there if she wants to get involved[/QUOTE]
This is EXACTLY why you need to be Direct with women! You NEED to put them in a position where they are forced to either RECIPROCATE or REJECT your interest in them. The problem with indirect is that it doesn’t do that…it allows a woman to toy with you and not give you a yes or no answer, but instead to say ‘maybe’ to you. Wouldn’t you prefer to know UPFRONT whether a woman is interested in you or not?
QUOTE=Roosh]She’ll bow out (“Sorry I have a boyfriend”), or just be nice to you for the flattering attention[/QUOTE]
What do you base these assumptions on? I’m sick of indirect guys AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMING that ‘direct will get you rejected, therefore you need to go indirect’.
Let me set you straight. A woman will only reject you outright if she’s not interested. I haven’t found that women will ‘just be nice to you for flattering attention’ if you approach them Direct. I’ve found that with indirect, though.
And the line ‘I’ve got a boyfriend’ shouldn’t always be taken at face value. Anyone who’s experienced with women should know that.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Truth is direct game guys get a lot of numbers but have a pitiful close rate.[/QUOTE]
NOT TRUE. If anything, it’s indirect that has a pitiful ‘close rate’. Most indirect guys spend ages talking to women, running their routines, techniques, tactics etc and their focus is on getting the phone number. However, how many of these phone numbers actually lead to anything more, such as a date, sex, getting a girlfriend, etc?
My thoughts about indirect are that it simply entertains a girl in the moment…gets her laughing, gets her talking to you….but a lot of the time gets you nothing beyond that. Indirect simply gives you the ILLUSION that you’re ‘getting somewhere’ with a woman, when in reality all you’re doing is having an entertaining interaction with her and possibly getting her phone number. But what about actual closes?
Here’s something a lot of people don’t know: David X has said in interviews that he used to give counseling to Mystery. Mystery used to entertain women and get tons of phone numbers….but he could very rarely ‘close’ any of these numbers. And to think, thousands upon thousands of men all over the world look up to Mystery as if he’s some kind of ‘pickup God’ or something. The actual truth is a lot different.
As for Direct getting guys a lot of numbers…you’ll actually find that most Direct guys DON’T put their emphasis on getting phone numbers. Instead, we place our emphasis on STATING OUR INTENTIONS. Most Direct guys also don’t ask a girl for her numbers, but instead prefer to give her our number and tell her to call if she’s interested in getting together. So I don’t know where you got this idea that Direct guys get a lot of phone numbers and not many closes. This isn’t true, mate.
All these videos of indirect guys approaching women and getting numbers are bullshit too….I don’t care how many numbers the guy got, I want to know what happened AFTER that….did he get a date with the woman? Did he have sex with her? Did he start dating her? No video EVER tells you these things. It’s merely an ILLUSION that these indirect guys are getting ACTUAL CLOSES. Interactions and phone numbers, yes…closes? Rarely.
I want to add that I’m not saying indirect doesn’t work, I’m simply saying that is it far less efficient than Direct, and causes men to waste a lot of time interacting with women who are not genuinely sexually attracted to them, whilst giving you the illusion you’re ‘getting somewhere’ with her.
[QUOTE=Roosh]But let’s say you’re a natural who has been getting laid since you were 15-years-old. Girls gravitate to you and wherever you go you’re getting checked out, probably due to your above-average looks and sexy body language. In that case going direct may be a better option. For some really good-looking guys who have limited conversational skills, going indirect would actually hurt them. They need to quickly get down to business before she realizes there isn’t much substance beneath the surface.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. There are many, many Direct guys who are average looking who have massive success with Direct. David X is one example…he’s not classically handsome or good looking, but he got laid like crazy because of his confidence. It’s NOT TRUE that Direct only works for good looking guys. Women are more attracted to a guy’s overall confidence and demeanor than his looks. I’m not saying looks mean nothing, but good looks alone don’t gety a guy laid….they have to be backed up by confidence.
I think Alan himself has said in the past ‘There is something compelling about a guy who is not good looking, but who carries himself with a boatload of confidence’.
This idea that you need to be indirect if you’re not good looking is BULLSHIT.
[QUOTE=Roosh]The more value you have, in terms of looks and status, the more direct you can go where you can approach girls saying they’re beautiful and bang that night without problems.[/QUOTE]
Value? Please stop spouting these ‘pseudo scientific’ seduction theories such as ‘value’ around. The concept of VALUE comes from the indirect community. Us Direct guys don’t over-think this stuff….we just concentrate on approaching women and being completely upfront and honest about our intentions. By doing this, we’re automatically perceived as ‘high value’…whatever that means anyway.
[QUOTE=Roosh]But if you’re a random guy off the street who needs to study game to get the girls he wants, chance are you don’t have that initial value where you will be rewarded for your direct opener.[/QUOTE]
Initial value? If you approach a girl in the street in a bold, upfront, honest manner, you’ll AUTOMATICALLY be perceived as a ‘high value’ male….without having to try and create ‘fake value’ like most indirect guys do.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Every now and then I’m at a bar where for whatever reason I’m getting tons of looks or even getting approached outright. On those specific nights, I can go direct with success. On the other hand, if very few girls are checking me out, or the place is packed with dudes, going direct would be a suicide mission unless my target is ugly.
If not a lot of girls are peeping you in the club, approach with indirect game, but if you feel like a rock star and think you can have your pick of whichever woman you want, then go direct. Unfortunately this type of scenario will never happen to most of us.[/QUOTE]
COMPLETELY DISAGREE. It DOES NOT MATTER if you are being looked at or ‘checked out’ by women before you approach them. Why do you believe you can only go Direct if women check you out first? That’s BULLSHIT. Anyone who waits for women to ‘check them out’ first before going Direct is basically SCARED OF REJECTION, therefore wants to GUARANTEE he won’t be rejected from his Direct approach.
What about women who find you hot but don’t give you any ‘signs’ before you approach? You don’t need to wait for ‘signs’ or ‘signals’ before you approach someone Direct. Most women DON’T give you any signs first, as they’re busy doing their own thing, so you should approach regardless of whether you get a ‘sign’ or not.
I disagree that Direct is ‘suicide’ in a club. Listen, clubs and full of manipulative women, attention seekers, etc. Direct will cut through all that shit and force the women who are interested in you to reveal their interest. But if you go indirect in a club, you’ll waste time with a lot of these attention seekers who will TALK to guys for the attention, but won’t go home with him.
The best weapon against manipulative women is direct honesty.
If I’m in a club, I simply walk up to women and let them know I’m attracted to them, and then let them know I’m looking for someone to take home with me tonight and ask if they’re interested. This is the most efficient way to get one night stands in bars and clubs, because it cuts through the manipulative bullshit and gets right to the point.
[QUOTE=Roosh]If you approach a girl indirect that you could have gone direct on, the only difference is that it will take a little longer for the close. Because of this reason alone, it’s simply a good bet to have a default game that is indirect.[/QUOTE]
If it takes longer to get the close from indirect, why not just go Direct in the first place? You’d have got faster results. I don’t know how you can say it’s better to have default game as indirect, when you’ve just admitted indirect is slower for getting closes. You’re logic is a bit off there, buddy.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Direct game is fun to mess around with on the side, but when I’m serious about getting laid I stay indirect. For average looking guys, it’s their best option.[/QUOTE]
Again, your logic is off. When I’m serious about figuring out which women are sexually attracted to me, I stay Direct. Indirect is fine if you just want some fun, entertaining, flirty interactions with women with no real guarantees of their sexual interest in you….but for truly sorting out which women are sexually attracted to you vs which are not, then Direct is far more efficient. It doesn’t matter if you’re good looking, average, ugly….Direct is STILL the most efficient way to separate the girls who are attracted to you from those who are just wasting your time.
[QUOTE=Roosh]Bottom line: there are girls who will reject your direct game that would have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect. But not the other way around[/QUOTE]
NOT TRUE. Here’s the thing most indirect guys don’t understand: YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMEN WHO ISN’T SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU BECOME SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU. If a girl REJECTS you from a Direct approach because she simply isn’t sexually attracted to you, NOTHING you can do could make her become sexually attracted to you. No amount of indirect routines/tactics/techniques will make her become sexually attracted to you.
This is where the indirect guys have it wrong: indirect guys believe you can MAKE a girl become attracted to you by ‘gaming’ her with techniques/tactics/routines etc. You CAN’T. The ACTUAL TRUTH is: if a girl sleeps with you from an indirect approach, she had some sexual interest in you from the beginning. Therefore, you’d have been better off going Direct anyway and you’d have likely got faster results by approaching her Direct.
Good Post and very good comments, especially Neil_k.
I chose the “direct” and practice a bit indirect game.
In the end nobody can say who is right cause nobody can check the others results (getting laid, getting a GF). I agree that mistery is a very interesting, charismatic person but hes a faggot in black with a gay hat. He entertains a lot, yes… and then? In real life he sucks. Cant image he goes in a club, 3 hours later he takes a girl home and fuck her till the morning to stone age. I believe he goes in club, entertains, takes 14 numbers and go home and talks to himself “Ye Mistery, you are the PUA Guru”.
So.. Direct for the win. Dont wanna waste my time for entertaining random girls while they arent attracted.
But I can Image why some ppl think indirect is more effective. Guys who hadnt some girls or girlfriends did some indirect thinks entertained some girls and thought thats enough.
Oh well, iam tired and english isnt my language. Thank you all
Thanks you AndyK, I’m glad someone else ‘gets it’ when it comes to Direct. There was a discussion on Roosh’s forum about my comments on this thread. I politely responded to their points, but Roosh banned me, calling me a ‘troll’.
It’s too bad that Roosh felt threatened by my comments…but if I see bullshit about Direct being written, then it is my duty to correct these points.
To anyone who reads this…the above article STINKS. Don’t listen to it. Read Alan Roger Currie’s ebook ‘Mode One’ and check out David X too. That is the ONLY advice on women you’ll ever need. Forget indirect/PUA stuff, it’ll just mess you up. it’s better to be real and honest with women, hence why the Direct approach will always reign as King.
Btw, anyone who wishes can read the post for themselves where Roosh and his crew talked shit about me. Here it is: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-3903.html
Roosh and the guys on his forum didn’t have the balls to have a proper debate with me; Roosh just banned me instead of taking up the challenge of a friendly debate about Direct vs indirect. By banning me, he proved I got to him. Too bad guys, too bad.
To Roosh and his crew: you didn’t ‘slap me around’, you didn’t do anything other than prove you don’t get Direct. I told you I would answer any of your questions related to Direct, but before I got a chance I was banned.
Roosh and his crew asked me to provide a ‘canned script’ or conversation example for Direct…but what they don’t get is that Direct isn’t a canned conversation. The actual words vary from interaction to interaction. Direct is about saying what is truly on your mind in any given moment and letting a girl know what you truly want from her. Therefore there is no ‘script’.
Roosh and his crew failed to provide a convincing or intelligent counter-argument to the points I made, therefore I can safely say I’ve won this debate.
Take care guys.
Here’s what I’m thinking at this exact moment. “You’re a bit of a baby”
Fisto – if standing up for myself and the Direct approach against people who don’t get it makes me a ‘bit of a baby’, so be it.
I’m TIRED of indirect/PUA wannabe types spreading false propoganda about Direct and saying things like ‘Direct doesn’t work’, etc.
Listen kids…go back to your indirect/PUA material…but stop bashing the Direct Approach. Just because YOU lot can’t get Direct to work for you doesn’t mean it doesn’t work or that it’s ineffective, etc.
Also, to Roosh and his crew, please stop referring to Direct a ‘direct game’. This is why you can’t get Direct to work for you. You are trying to use direct as another trick/tool/technique/tactic in your ‘bag of seduction tricks’.
Direct is not a tactic/technique etc, and if you use it as such you will fail.
Direct is about being your true and real self and being upfront and honest with women about what you want from them. No techniques/tactics, etc. When you realise this, THEN you will get Direct to work for you.
Roosh said on page 2 of the discussion http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-3903-page-2.html
‘It’s just that the direct guys have a real chip on their shoulder. They trash indirect game more than explaining their methods. Sure I’ll rag on direct openers every now and then (e.g. sasha’s day game video), but I’m not going to start a crusade against a type of game’.
If that’s the case, Roosh,….why did you post this article in the first place. The answer: YOU BASHED THE DIRECT APPROACH in the first place.
Roosh, you can’t write bullshit articles like this and then expect us Direct guys not to respond. Get real son…
Samsaeu said ‘My favorite Direct Opener is the one posted by Roissy:
ME: [looking disapprovingly at her head] Doing your hair like that is only going to attract the wrong kind of guy.
GIRL: [if she's cool and witty] Are you saying you’re the wrong kind of guy?
ME: Since I noticed that hairstyle, I must be.’
Samseau, that open/routine is NOT Direct. Not in the slightest. You didn’t state your intentions to the girl. You didn’t say anything remotely Direct there.
Guys, do yourselves a favour and read Mode One and David X’s material and get yourselves properly clued up about Direct….
‘I think a lot of this “I only go direct, no need to waste time, I am The Super G” type stuff flies really well on the Internet.
But come on. In the real world that we all live in, the super Direct Game is not the cure all.
Sure it might work at times, and is probably a good move at 4am in Las Vegas, but let’s be real.
Direct Game is just another “combination” in your arsenal (like a jab-jab-left hook-straight right to the head) ie Pac-Man.’
Sorry, thegmanifesto, but most of us Direct guys get Direct to work just fine for us. If you can’t get Direct to work for YOU, then too bad….but then make false claims like ‘Direct doesn’t work in the real world’, etc.
Also, it’s mainly indirect guys who are kjs…not us Direct guys. The majority of indirect guys don’t get laid in my experience. They can entertain women with their tactics/techniques/routine and their silly hats and their magic tricks, and maybe get a phone number…but as far as actually getting laid, most indirect guys don’t.
And no, Direct isn’t ‘just another tool in your arsenal’. As I’ve said previously, DIRECT IS NOT A TECHNIQUE OR TACTIC, AND IF YOU USE IT AS A TECHNIQUE OR TACTIC YOU WILL FAIL.
For Direct to work, it has to be 100% authentic and real. And when you understand this, you’ll never ever go back to lame ‘indirect game’ again.
Typo correction to my above comment….when I said …
‘but then make false claims like Direct doesn’t work in the real world’, etc’,
it should have read: ‘but then DON’T make false claims like Direct doesn’t work in the real world’
I think it comes down to personality and subsequently how congruent you come off. To be honest I am not really interested in a girls opinion on something and when I use indirect I come off as try hard and fake. I could probably make that work with a bit of practice but then again I always ask myself: Why practice lines/routines if I could practice being me?
I know a guy who is really good with women and he uses indirect. He personally told me it took him quiet a while to make that work and one of his biggest obstacles are the “20 min sets to nowhere.”
That never really happens to me because I straight away get out there why I am talking to her. Yes I get rejected more, but that again saves me time for the good leads that feel me straight away.
The biggest fallacy that many proponents of ultra-direct game, apocalypse openers or the ‘Mode One’ approach is that it saves time. Being this direct will get you more flakes, more outright initial rejections (maybe unless you have some sort of superficial status signifier such as looks, money, or social proof) than if you went indirect, and this usually cancels out the added time saved from not going through the process of indirectly building value when going indirect. If we say that the point of game is to the girls you want, then surely indirect, which improves the ratio (rather than playing a glorified numbers game where you’ll have to start approaching ‘cute’ girls instead of ‘gorgeous’ ones) is the more efficient method for most guys.
The second biggest fallacy is neil_k’s idea that “YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMEN WHO ISNT SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU BECOME SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU.” Female sexual attraction is temporary – surely you have been in a situation where you have either experienced this? What about the idea of social proof, or changing your look and vibe? I can’t believe that none of these will ever have any effect.
Anonymous’, once again you are a CLASSIC example of someone who doesn’t understand Direct in any shape or form, so allow me to clear up your misconceptions. These are common misconceptions about direct, btw, and I’ve heard them dozens of times before.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]The biggest fallacy that many proponents of ultra-direct game, apocalypse openers or the ‘Mode One’ approach is that it saves time.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Direct saves you time because it enables you to quickly and efficiently figure out which women are genuinely attracted to you in a romantic/sexual manner, and which girls are not. Indirect does not do this. Indirect causes you to waste time with women who are not genuinely attracted to you, whilst giving you the illusion you’re ‘getting somewhere with her’.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]Being this direct will get you more flakes[/QUOTE]
I’ve actually found that Direct gets me fewer flakes, because Direct weeds out the women who are are NOT interested in me, which then enables me to focus only on those who ARE interested in me. If I focus only on the girls who are genuinely attracted to me, I’m less likely to get flakes. Simply really. Since I started going Direct with women, I rarely get flakes.
I’ll tell you why you indirect guys get tons of flakes: you focus too much on getting phone numbers from as many women as possible, which revealing you true intentions. What happens is that you end up with a ton of phone numbers from girls who aren’t genuinely sexually attracted to you, so when you call them they flake on you. I know that’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s the truth.
Most Direct guys, including myself, don’t take phone numbers from women. We concentrate on expressing our intentions upfront, and then we give out our number to the woman. I never take phone numbers. I give them my number and tell them to call me if they’re interested in getting together, and I also tell them not to waste my time if they’re not genuinely interested.
I’ve found this has pretty much cut out 99% of flakes completely, since only the ones who are genuinely interested will call me. It’s a much, much better ‘strategy’ than collecting a bunch of useless phone numbers.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]more outright initial rejections[/QUOTE]
A woman will reject a guy who she isn’t sexually attracted to, no matter whether he approaches her Direct or indirect. The only difference is, you will get rejected faster by being Direct. REALITY CHECK: If a women isn’t sexually attracted to you, she will eventually reject you. Direct will cause her to reject you upfront, saving you time. Indirect will cause her to reject you later on down the line, but at some point she WILL eventually reject you if she isn’t attracted to you.
I don’t know about you, but if a girl isn’t attracted to me, I would prefer she let me know UPFRONT, so that I don’t waste time with her. If you have all the time in the world, that’s up to you. I don’t.
Why would any man ever want to waste time interacting with a girl who isn’t attracted to him? See, you indirect guys think that you can ‘win a girl over’ who wasn’t attracted to you. I’ve got news for you – you can’t.
It’s better to know upfront whether a girl is into you or not, and Direct is the most efficient way of figuring this out.
[QUOTE=Anonymous](maybe unless you have some sort of superficial status signifier such as looks, money, or social proof)[/QUOTE]
Direct guys attract women by being real men. We don’t need to rely on external, superficial stuff. Save that for the indirect guys. Not that money and looks don’t help a guy’s cause, but really being attractive is everything to do with the man’s internal, intrinsic qualities and his personality and demeanour.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]this usually cancels out the added time saved from not going through the process of indirectly building value when going indirect[/QUOTE]
Direct guys don’t worry about pseudo scientific PUA theories such as ‘value’, etc. We are already men of ‘high value’! We don’t need to falsely true and ‘create’ or ‘demonstrate’value. I’ve found that is always backfires if a man TRIES to be high value. He should BE high value naturally, not try to falsely create it. That is where the PUA idea of value falls flat on it’s face – women see through that shit and can sense when you’re being fake. Better to be real with them.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]If we say that the point of game is to the girls you want, then surely indirect, which improves the ratio (rather than playing a glorified numbers game where you’ll have to start approaching ‘cute’ girls instead of ‘gorgeous’ ones) is the more efficient method for most guys.[/QUOTE]
The point of ‘game’ (which I define as ‘skill with women’) is to figure out which girls are genuinely attracted to you and which girls are not, so you can 1) attract the girls who are into you, and 2) not waste your time and energy on the girls who aren’t into you.
How is indirect ‘more efficient’? It’s isn’t! As I said previously, Direct forces a woman to reveal her true colours, i.e. is she attracted to you, or is she not. Indirect does not do this.
The biggest problem with indirect is that it causes men to waste too much time with women who are not genuinely attracted to him. The guy THINKS he is ‘getting somewhere’ with the woman just because she’s talking to him, but in reality she may not be interested in him sexually at all. The guy will find this out eventually, after wasting time talking to her for ages without revealing his intentions, etc, and he will be ANGRY that he wasted so much time.
Direct cuts through all that bullshit and gets right to the point, saving a man time so that he can get rid of the women who aren’t attracted to him, so he can focus only on those that are attracted to him. This is so unbelievably simple.
So don’t give me this crap about ‘indirect being more efficient’. That’s bullshit, bro. TOTAL BULLSHIT.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]The second biggest fallacy is neil_k’s idea that “YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMEN WHO ISNT SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU BECOME SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU.”[/QUOTE]
I stand by what I said, and my experiences confirm this. A man can only amplify attraction that is there in the first place; he cannot create attraction if a girl simply is not sexually attracted to him.
What you indirect guys fail to realise is that there are some women out there that will NEVER be sexually attracted to you. You falsely believe you can ‘attract ANY woman’, by using techniques/tactics/routines, etc. That is incorrect. The bottom line is: some women will be sexually attracted to you, some won’t. That’s just a basic fact of life, and no amount of using pua tactics/techniques etc can ever make a girl who’s not attracted to you change her mind.
Think about it like this: if a fat girl who smelled of shit who had 1 tooth in her mouth approached you, you wouldn’t be attracted to her. No matter how much ‘game’ she used on you, nothing could change your mind and make you become attracted to her. In the same way, some women just won’t be attracted to you. It’s just life.
[QUOTE=Anonymous]Female sexual attraction is temporary – surely you have been in a situation where you have either experienced this? [/QUOTE]
Female attraction isn’t always ‘temporary’. But even the times when it is, what has that got to do with Direct?
[QUOTE=Anonymous] What about the idea of social proof, or changing your look and vibe? I can’t believe that none of these will ever have any effect.[/QUOTE]
I don’t concern myself with ‘social proof’. I work alone when it comes to meeting women. I approach women in the street, shopping centres/malls, and sometimes in bars and clubs, or wherever I happen to be. I think ‘social proof’ is over-rated. A real man doesn’t need to create the false illusion of being popular just to get women. A real man approaches women Direct, one-on-one; he was no need to worry about things like ‘social proof’ etc. The whole concept of ‘social proof’ is secondary and just fluff round the edges that is not necessary to be successful with women at all. It’s extremely over-rated.
A man can maximize his image and ‘vibe’, but most of all what he needs to do is concentrate on simply being REAL and HONEST with women about what he truly wants from them and why he is talking to them….instead of hiding his intentions and using manipulative tactics/techniques, etc like the indirect guys.
Typo correction in the 2nd paragraph, it should read
‘I’ll tell you why you indirect guys get tons of flakes: you focus too much on getting phone numbers from as many women as possible, WITHOUT revealing you true intentions’
neil_k I highly doubt that a guy who looks like William Dafoe would get anywhere using Direct Game, it’s basically what Roosh V was trying to say…
Just my 2 cents.
“The main problem I have with direct game is this: it shows your cards right away and forces the girl to make a decision before you build up any value besides your appearance and confidence. That’s not enough for the majority of Western girls. You’re not giving her the time and information she needs to weigh the pros and cons on sleeping with you. Instead, immediately after the opener, you force her to decide right then and there if she wants to get involved.”
you forget about one crucial thing here that makes direct better than anything. and that is screening. comning from the place of a buyer (not seller) you state what’s going on, you show your cards that you find her attractive (verbally or not) BUT you still checking if she’s your type. it’s not like you’re giving her compliment hoping she’ll give you approval. you’re not sold just because you find her cute, you’re not standing there waiting for her green light. the act of direct approach is to express your interest and learn about her to see if she’s your type, if there’s chemistry. at any point you can say she’s not your type, leave and approach other girl you find attractive.
it’s common thing that guys thing that direct game is putting your balls on the line in hope she will accept you. no no no. that’s why they fail at this.
direct is strong approach > stating interest > screening her. the frame of the whole interaction is “who are YOU?”. even if you give her praise in some kind of way at first you just screening her.
but this is only for opening, right? then soon or later you have to go direct and clearly show that you don’t want just to be her friend
Wow, it must suck being a guy sometimes. I feel for you fellas. This here is a girl obviously, totally gatecrashing the secret mens business chat ~2 years after the blog post went up
Neil K makes some good points. I mean, there has to be something that we like about you if you’re going to get anywhere! Cute face? or fit? delicious cologne? maybe looks intelligent? any sense of style? not acting like a dick? carries himself with pride? chilled, at ease? appears to recognise that I am a human being not just a potential shag? any repugnant political views carefully tucked away out of sight? just a few of these at a time would be fine, and all of them?…well, that’s your wife calling you now lol
the guy at #40 who said “caveman style direct game is very attractive to a lot of girls” also makes a good point. Sometimes we want caveman. but you need to vibe serious caveman (note, not Obnoxious Jerk) to pull this off, I think…
if some guy came up to me with a smile and said ‘Hey. I couldn’t help noticing you across the bar. You… look …incredibly …sexy (makes proper eye contact). I want to take you home and just eat you up like an ice cream. I think you’d taste like rum n raisin / strawberry / chocolate rock etc” I’d raise an eyebrow and try not to smile but I’d be listening. And depending on all that stuff above, and whether it was a day with an S in it and the temperature was above 25 degrees C with an easterly breeze or whatever, hey, you might get lucky. If it strikes me that you might be a decent lay that is, otherwise what’s in it for me, seriously? If it’s a hot one nighter you want, and I’m offered the temptation to be devoured like an ice cream in some stranger’s bed, you’d better be prepared to meet your end of the bargain. [Not actual devouring. That's for bears and zombies and things. Plus there's all that death and stuff...messy]
Apparently i am not unattractive so have seen my fair share of ‘openers’ or approaches, whatever you call them. I honestly can’t say one works differently or better than any other, maybe I have been too drunk in the past, these days I am looked at but a man will rarely approach me (could be the second head I guess). I do need to like your look / vibe before I contemplate getting physical.
Honestly, if you have nothing else, just go with eye contact and a cheeky smile across the bar and at some stage, take a deep breath, fucking relax, let go of all need or expectation of outcomes, WALK UP TO HER, SMILE and say “Hi, I’m ______. I couldn’t help noticing you from over there – how’s your night going? / I swear I dreamt about you last night / you have the kind of figure that artists would brawl over to be able to paint / did I see you in XYZ coffee shop the other day / …” you know you know, simple, and turn up the dial if you want her to know pretty fast you think she’s something else. Make sure you have something to follow up on after that yeah? She saw you, you saw her, you took a punt and came up to her, if she;s a bitch then you lost nothing, if things are going well you could wander off to the corner for a drink and a little chit chat with her.
I’ve had a few guys practically throw themselves at me, when someone says within minutes of meeting you, “you’re captivating!!” or “i think you’re amazing and gorgeous” or whatever, it’s plain WIERD – like, where do you go after that? I haven’t made up my mind about you yet and am
standing there thinking, ‘OK, right. I’m flattered, so…you think I’m hot. That’s nice. What am I supposed to do about that?’ I’m not being a cow. it’s very flattering. but it doesn’t take me anywhere.
so anyway, have now written enough for you to confirm that I am female, don’t know if this is any use, have fun!
She-Ra, only dumb guys or boys read advice from girls. You don’t know that, but it’s like an architect studying a drawing, and a little child points at the drawing and says ‘hey, funny shapes! ‘.
Meaning: girls can’t give any fucking advice whatsoever to men. Let alone ‘dating’ advice. 110 per cent of it is ridiculous fucking nonsense. Try cooking advice, you’ll find men who takes it seriously.
hahahahah! Really? Here’s some advice you might be able to understand, madmax: go fuck yourself! It’s probably the only root you’ll ever get.
ah ah….She-ra, no need to get angry. I only meant to say that the trash you wrote is stupid nonsense and that women can’t teach guys anything about dating.
Go teach your girlfriends some dating crap like the one you wrote: ‘I dreamt of you last night’.
You are not a man, so shut up and don’t pretend you know what we guys feel or should do or should not.
” you have the kind of figure that artists would brawl over to be able to paint”
ah ah, that’s the perfect shit to say if I were a total wimp who was trying to kiss her ass and be her little puppy.
She-ra, more cooking.
“Most Direct guys also don’t ask a girl for her numbers, but instead prefer to give her our number and tell her to call if she’s interested in getting together”
Madmax, being a PUA is about attracting women so why are you commenting on this subject when you obviously hate women (you gay!)
How do you normally handle the “I have a boyfriend” line. I’ve read all of Alan Roger Currie’s books so i’m very familiar to the direct philosophy. Just curious to how you handle that, as a guy who is more experienced being direct that me. 99.9% of the time i’ve just left them alone personally……
There is only one Man who Will make you completely fulfilled, and that Man is Jesus. I promise that if you seek him and let him into your heart you will experience rest and Everlasting Joy. I pray that you will take this message to heart and experience TRUE Happiness in Jesus. God Bless. ps. Pray to Jesus about all of your problems so that he will help you like he has helped me always.
this will be something thatll always check in on…very important page on game
I think it all depends on the person. Some guys just find it extremely difficult to go direct. I personally believe direct is the way to go in 80% of situations. In direct is essential for a lot of situations though where a girl wouldn’t respond to direct which is often. Use both.
Also, for guys trying to get over approach anxiety, direct is the way to go, especially when first starting game.